Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On 2004-07-12 15:43:55 +0100 Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
*snort* This is just getting comical now. Since when is supplying a
copy of source considered a fee?
It was suggested to me that compelled contribution of copyrightable
work to the upstream would probably be classed as consideration in
England, although I've not been able to verify that. The suggestor is
not a lawyer, but has studied contract law for another qualification,
which is more than I have.
I think "consideration" is what Brian is trying to say but ICBW.
If you believe your argument about source requirements constituting a
fee, yes. In the real world, no. Try that in court and you'll get
laughed at.
I didn't know you were a lawyer or court expert, Steve McIntyre.
In general, I don't think this ocaml bug should be pursued until
general issues have been settled (or comprehensively fail to reach
anything like consensus in reasonable time) for libcwd, which came
here more recently. Is it proper for any packager of a QPL'd work
currently in main to tag this moreinfo,help and wait a while?
IANAL, as most people know.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden
Reply to: